Verse-by-Verse Bible Commentary

Daniel 9:26

Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.
New American Standard Version

Bible Study Resources

Concordances:
Nave's Topical Bible - Angel (a Spirit);   Atonement;   Church;   Daily Offering;   Day;   Israel, Prophecies Concerning;   Jerusalem;   Jesus, the Christ;   Jesus Continued;   Scofield Reference Index - Christ;   Sacrifice;   The Topic Concordance - Abomination;   Jesus Christ;   Torrey's Topical Textbook - Atonement, the;   Daily Sacrifice, the;   Death of Christ, the;   Prophecies Respecting Christ;  
Dictionaries:
American Tract Society Bible Dictionary - Daniel;   Sacrifice;   Bridgeway Bible Dictionary - Gabriel;   Vision;   Baker Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology - Vision(s);   Charles Buck Theological Dictionary - Atonement;   Messiah;   Reconciliation;   Easton Bible Dictionary - Anoint;   Christ;   Gabriel;   Messiah;   Prophecy;   Week;   Fausset Bible Dictionary - Anoint;   Jesus Christ;   King;   Messiah;   Nehemiah;   Week;   Holman Bible Dictionary - Abomination, Abomination of Desolation;   Daniel, Book of;   Ezekiel;   Seventy Weeks;   Tribulation;   Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible - Atonement;   Luke, Gospel According to;   Onias;   Prayer;   Thessalonians, Second Epistle to the;   Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament - Numbers;   Morrish Bible Dictionary - Anointed, the;   Christ, the Christ,;   Judah, the Kingdom of;   Seventy Weeks of Daniel;   People's Dictionary of the Bible - Anointing;   Smith Bible Dictionary - Anointing,;   Wilson's Dictionary of Bible Types - Flood;   Watson's Biblical & Theological Dictionary - Seven;  
Encyclopedias:
Condensed Biblical Cyclopedia - Babylonish Captivity, the;   International Standard Bible Encyclopedia - Canon of the Old Testament;   Christ, Offices of;   Determine;   Nothing;   Onias;   Prince;   Seventy Weeks;   Week;   The Jewish Encyclopedia - Abraham Ha-Levi ben Eliezer Ha-Zaḳ;   Gabriel;   Messiah;   Onias;   Sheshbazzar;  

Adam Clarke Commentary

And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary - By the "prince" Titus, the son of Vespasian, is plainly intended; and "the people of that prince" are no other than the Romans, who, according to the prophecy, destroyed the sanctuary, הקדש hakkodesh, the holy place or temple, and, as a flood, swept away all, till the total destruction of that obstinate people finished the war.

Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Bibliographical Information
Clarke, Adam. "Commentary on Daniel 9:26". "The Adam Clarke Commentary". https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/acc/daniel-9.html. 1832.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible

And after threescore and two weeks - After the completion of the last period of four hundred and thirty-four years. The angel had shown in the previous verse what would be the characteristic of the first period of “seven weeks” - that during that time the wall and the street would be built in circumstances of general distress and anxiety, and he now proceeds to state what would occur in relation to the remaining sixty-two weeks. The particular thing which would characterize that period would be, that the Messiah would be cut off, and that the series of events would commence which would terminate in the destruction of the city and the temple. He does not say that this would be immediately on the termination of the sixty-two weeks, but he says that it would be “after” אחרי 'achărēy - “subsequent” to the close of that period. The word does not mean necessarily immediately, but it denotes what is to succeed - to follow - and would be well expressed by the word “afterward:” Genesis 15:14; Genesis 23:19; Genesis 25:26, et al. See Gesenius, Lexicon The natural meaning here would be, that this would be the “next event” in the order of events to be reckoned; it would be that on which the prophetic eye would rest subsequent to the close of the period of sixty-two weeks. There are two circumstances in the prophecy itself which go to show that it is not meant that this would immediately follow:

(a) One is, that in the previous verse it is said that the “sixty-two weeks” would extend “unto the Messiah;” that is, either to his birth or to his manifestation as such; and it is not implied anywhere that he would be “cut off” at once on his appearing, nor is such a supposition reasonable, or one that would have been embraced by an ancient student of the prophecies;

(b) the other is, that, in the subsequent verse, it is expressly said that what he would accomplish in causing the oblation to cease would occur “in the midst of the week;” that is, of the remaining one week that would complete the seventy. This could not occur if he were to be “cut off” immediately at the close of the sixty-two weeks.

The careful student of this prophecy, therefore, would anticipate that the Messiah would appear at the close of the sixty-two weeks, and that he would continue during a part, at least, of the remaining one week before he would be cut off. This point could have been clearly made out from the prophecy before the Messiah came.

Shall Messiah - Notes, Daniel 9:25.

Be cut off - The word used here (כרת kârath ) means, properly, to cut, to cut off, as a part of a garment, 1 Samuel 24:5 (6), 11 (12); a branch of a tree, Numbers 13:23; the prepuce, Exodus 4:25; the head, 1 Samuel 17:51; 1 Samuel 5:4; to cut down trees, Deuteronomy 19:5; Isaiah 14:8; Isaiah 44:14; Jeremiah 10:3; Jeremiah 22:7. Then it means to cut off persons, to destroy, Deuteronomy 20:20; Jeremiah 11:19; Genesis 9:11; Psalm 37:9; Proverbs 2:22; Proverbs 10:31, et al. scepe. The phrase, “that soul shall be cut off from his people,” “from the midst of the people,” “from Israel,” “from the congregation,” etc., occurs frequently in the Scriptures (compare Genesis 17:14; Leviticus 7:20-21; Numbers 15:30; Numbers 19:13, Numbers 19:20; Exodus 12:19, et al.), and denotes the punishment of death in general, without defining the manner. “It is never the punishment of exile.” - Gesenius, Lexicon The proper notion or meaning here is, undoubtedly, that of being cut off by death, and would suggest the idea of a “violent” death, or a death by the agency of others.

It would apply to one who was assassinated, or murdered by a mob, or who was appointed to death by a judicial decree; or it might be applied to one who was cut down in battle, or by the pestilence, or by lightning, or by shipwreck, but it would not naturally or properly be applied to one who had lived out his days, and died a peaceful death. We always now connect with the word the idea of some unusual interposition, as when we speak of one who is cut down in middle life. The ancient translators understood it of a violent death. So the Latin “Vulgate, occidetur Christus;” Syriac, “the Messiah shall be slain,” or put to death. It need not be here said that this phrase would find a complete fulfillment in the manner in which the Lord Jesus was put to death, nor that this is the very language in which it is proper now to describe the manner in which he was removed. He was cut off by violence; by a judicial decree: by a mob; in the midst of his way, etc. If it should be admitted that the angel meant to describe the manner of his death, he could not have found a single word that would have better expressed it.

But not for himself - Margin, “and shall have nothing.” This phrase has given rise to not a little discussion, and not a little diversity of opinion. The Latin Vulgate is, “et non erit ejus populus, qui eum negaturus est” - “and they shall not be his people who shall deny him.” Theodotion (in the Septuagint), καὶ κρίμα οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἀυτῷ kai krima ouk estin en autō - “and there is no crime in him.” Syriac, “And it is not with him.” The Hebrew is לו ואין ve'ēyn lô - and the interpretation turns on the meaning of the word אין 'ēyn Hengstenberg maintains that it is never used in the sense of לא lo' (not), but that it always conveys the idea of “nothing,” or “non-existence,” and that the meaning here is, that, then, “there was nothing to him;” that is, that he ceased to have authority and power, as in the cutting off of a prince or ruler whose power comes to an end.

Accordingly he renders it, “and is not to him;” that is, his dominion, authority, or power over the covenant people as an anointed prince, would cease when he was cut off, and another one would come and desolate the sanctuary, and take possession. Bertholdt renders it, Ohne Nachfolger von den Seinigen zu haben- “without any successors of his own “ - meaning that his family, or that the dynasty would be cut off, or would end with him. He maintains that the whole phrase denotes “a sudden and an unexpected death,” and that it here means that he would have no successor of his own family. He applies it to Alexander the Great. Lengerke renders it, Und nicht ist vorhanden, der ihm, angehoret- and explains the whole to mean, “The anointed one (as the lawful king) shall be cut off, but it shall not then be one who belongs to his family (to wit, upon the throne), but a Prince shall come to whom the crown did not belong, to whom the name anointed could not properly belong.”

Maurer explains it, “There shall be to him no successor or lawful heir.” Prof. Stuart renders it, “One shall be cut off, and there shall be none for it” (the people). C. B. Michaelis, “and not to be will be his lot.” Jacch. and Hitzig, “and no one remained to him.” Rosch, “and no one was present for him.” Our translation - “but not for himself” - was undoubtedly adopted from the common view of the atonement - that the Messiah did not die for himself, but that his life was given as a ransom for others. There can be no doubt of that fact to those who hold the common doctrine of the atonement, and yet it maybe doubted whether the translators did not undesignedly allow their views of the atonement to shape the interpretation of this passage, and whether it can be fairly made out from the Hebrew. The ordinary meaning of the Hebrew word אין 'ēyn is, undoubtedly, “nothing, emptiness” - in the sense of there being nothing (see Gesenius, Lexicon); and, thus applied, the sense here would be, that after he was cut off, or in consequence of his being cut off, what he before possessed would cease, or there would be “nothing” to him; that is, either his life would cease, or his dominion would cease, or he would be cut off as the Prince - the Messiah. This interpretation appears to be confirmed by what is immediately said, that another would come and would destroy the city and the sanctuary, or that the possession would pass into his bands.

It seems probable to me that this is the fair interpretation. The Messiah would come as a “Prince.” It might be expected that he would come to rule - to set up a kingdom. But he would be suddenly cut off by a violent death. The anticipated dominion over the people as a prince would not be set up. It would not pertain to him. Thus suddenly cut off, the expectations of such a rule would be disappointed and blasted. He would in fact set up no such dominion as might naturally be expected of an anointed prince; he would have no successor; the dynasty would not remain in his hands or his family, and soon the people of a foreign prince would come and would sweep all away. This interpretation does not suppose that the real object of his coming would be thwarted, or that he would not set up a kingdom in accordance with the prediction properly explained, but that such a kingdom as would be expected by the people would not be set up.

He would be cut off soon after he came, and the anticipated dominion would not pertain to him, or there would be “nothing” of it found in him, and soon after a foreign prince would come and destroy the city and the sanctuary. This interpretation, indeed, will take this passage away as a proof-text of the doctrine of the atonement, or as affirming the design of the death of the Messiah, but it furnishes a meaning as much in accordance with the general strain of the prophecy, and with the facts in the work of the Messiah. For it was a natural expectation that when he came he would set up a kingdom - a temporal reign - and this expectation was extensively cherished among the people. He was, however, soon cut off, and all such hopes at once perished in the minds of his true followers (compare Luke 24:21), and in the minds of the multitudes who, though not his true followers, began to inquire whether he might not be the predicted Messiah - the Prince to sit on the throne of David. But of such an anticipated dominion or rule, there was “nothing” to him.

All these expectations were blighted by his sudden death, and soon, instead of his delivering the nation from bondage and setting up a visible kingdom, a foreign prince would come with his forces and would sweep away everything. Whether this would be the interpretation affixed to these words before the advent of the Messiah cannot now be determined. We have few remains of the methods in which the Hebrews interpreted the ancient prophecies, and we may readily suppose that they would not be disposed to embrace an exposition which would show them that the reign of the Messiah, as they anticipated it, would not occur, but that almost as soon as he appeared, he would be put to death, and the dominion pass away, and the nation be subjected to the ravages of a foreign power. “And the people of the prince that shall come.” Margin, “And they (the Jews) shall be no more his people; or, the Prince‘s (Messiah‘s) future people.” This seems to be rather an explanation of the meaning, than a translation of the Hebrew. The literal rendering would be, “and the city, and the sanctuary, the people of a prince that comes, shall lay waste.” On the general supposition that this whole passage refers to the Messiah and his time, the language used here is not difficult of interpretation, and denotes with undoubted accuracy the events that soon followed the “cutting off” of the Messiah. The word “people” (עם ‛am ) is a word that may well be applied to subjects or armies - such a people as an invading prince or warrior would lead with him for purposes of conquest. It denotes properly

(a) a people, or tribe, or race in general; and then

(b) the people as opposed to kings, princes, rulers (compare λαός laos the people as opposed to chiefs in Homer, Iliad ii. 365, xiii. 108, xxiv. 28): and then as soldiers, Judges 5:2. Hence, it may be applied, as it would be understood to be here, to the soldiers of the prince that should come.

Of the prince that shall come - The word “prince” here (נגיד nāgı̂yd ) is the same which occurs in Daniel 9:25, “Messiah the prince.” It is clear, however, that another prince is meant here, for

(a) it is just said that that prince - the Messiah - would be “cut off,” and this clearly refers to one that was to follow;

(b) the phrase “that is to come” (הבא habbâ' ) would also imply this.

It would naturally suggest the idea that he would come from abroad, or that he would be a foreign prince - for he would “come” for the purposes of destruction. No one can fail to see the applicability of this to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman power, after the Lord Jesus was put to death. If that was the design of the prophecy, or if it be admitted that the prophecy contemplated that, the language could not have been better chosen, or the prediction more exact. No one can reasonably doubt that, if the ancient Hebrews had understood the former part of the prophecy, as meaning that the true Messiah would be put to death soon after his appearing, they could not fail to anticipate that a foreign prince would soon come and lay waste their city and sanctuary.

Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary - The “holy place” - the temple. This is the termination of the prophecy. It begins with the command to “rebuild and restore” the city, and ends with its destruction. The time is not fixed, nor is there in the prophecy any direct intimation when it would occur, unless it be found in the general declaration in Daniel 9:24, that “seventy weeks were determined upon the people and the city.” The whole scope of the prophecy, however, would lead to the supposition that this was soon to occur after the Messiah should be “cut off.” The series of events under the Romans which led to the destruction of the city and temple, in fact, began very soon after the death of the Lord Jesus, and ceased only when the temple was wholly demolished, and the city was rased to its foundations.

And the end thereof - Hebrew, “its end,” or “his end” - קצו qı̂tsô It is not certain as to what the word “it” (ו ) here refers. It may be either the end of the city, or of the prince, or of the prophecy, so far as the grammatical construction is concerned. As the principal and immediate subject of the prophecy, however, is the city, it is more natural to refer it to that. Hengstenberg renders it, “it will end,” supposing, with Vitringa, that it refers to the subject of the discourse: “the thing - the whole affair - all that is here predicted in this series of events - will end with a flood.” This accords well with the whole design of the prophecy.

With a flood - בשׁטף basheṭeph That is, it shall be like an overflowing flood. The word used here means a “gushing, outpouring,” as of rain, Job 38:25; of a torrent, Proverbs 27:4; an overflowing, inundation, flood, Psalm 32:6; Nahum 1:8. Hence, it would appropriately denote the ravages of an army, sweeping everything away. It would be like a sudden inundation, carrying everything before it. No one can doubt that this language is applicable in every respect to the desolations brought upon Jerusalem by the Roman armies.

And unto the end of the war desolations are determined - Margin, “it shall be cut off by desolations.” Hengstenberg renders this, “and unto the end is war, a decree of ruins.” So Lengerke - and his aufs Ende Krieg und Beschluss der Wusten. Bertholdt renders it, “and the great desolations shall continue unto the end of the war.” The Latin Vulgate renders it, et post finem belli statuta desolatio - “and after the end of the war desolation is determined.” Prof. Stuart translates it, “and unto the end shall be war, a decreed measure of desolations.” The literal meaning of the passage is, “and unto the end of the war desolations are decreed,” or determined. The word rendered “determined” (חרץ chârats ) means, properly, to cut, cut in, engrave; then to decide, to determine, to decree, to pass sentence. See the notes at Daniel 9:24. Here the meaning naturally is, that such desolations were settled or determined as by a decree or purpose. There was something which made them certain; that is, it was a part of the great plan here referred to in the vision of the seventy weeks, that there should be such desolations extending through the war. The things which would, therefore, be anticipated from this passage would be,

(a) that there would be war. This is implied also in the assurance that the people of a foreign prince would come and take the city.

(b) That this war would be of a “desolating” character, or that it would in a remarkable manner extend and spread ruin over the land. All wars are thus characterized; but it would seem that this would do it in a remarkable manner.

(c) That these desolations would extend through the war, or to its close. There would be no intermission; no cessation. It is hardly necessary to say that this was, in fact, precisely the character of the war which the Romans waged with the Jews after the death of the Saviour, and which ended in the destruction of the city and temple; the overthrow of the whole Hebrew polity; and the removal of great numbers of the people to a distant and perpetual captivity. No war, perhaps, has been in its progress more marked by desolation; in none has the purpose of destruction been more perseveringly manifested to its very close. The “language” here, indeed, might apply to many wars - in a certain sense to all wars; to none, however, would it be more appropriate than to the wars of the Romans with the Jews.

Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Bibliographical Information
Barnes, Albert. "Commentary on Daniel 9:26". "Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible". https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bnb/daniel-9.html. 1870.

The Biblical Illustrator

Daniel 9:26

Shall Messiah be cut off, but not for Himself.

“Cut off, but not for Himself”

The Messiah here mentioned is the great and only God, who, in reference to His office as the anointed Saviour, was called Messiah, and also Christ. He is said to be “cut off, but not for Himself.” His being “cut off” denotes His being made a sacrifice. His being “cut off,” but “not for Himself,” implies His being made a sacrifice for us--that is, as our substitute. In no other way can justice be appeased; in noother way can sins be forgiven. The expression implies that He died as a sacrifice for the general good, and as a vicarious sacrifice. Christ died to make an atonement for our sins; and without that atonement we could never have been saved. (W. Durham.)

For the Sake of Others

On the side of some mighty tower you may see often a fragile rod. The rod saves the tower. It directs the vague, all-destroying electric flame of which the stormy air is full harmlessly into the earth. Such a lightning-rod is every righteous man to the city or class in which he lives. His one desire is to win some wondrous good for his fellow-men. That is what Christ did for all the world, and we are true Christians in as far as we are consciously trying to do for others the work of Christ. We cannot at the best do much we have only one life, one second that is in God’s eternity to do it in, but that becomes majestic when it is regarded as part of one mighty whole. (Dean Farrar.)
.

Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliographical Information
Exell, Joseph S. "Commentary on "Daniel 9:26". The Biblical Illustrator. https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/tbi/daniel-9.html. 1905-1909. New York.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible

And after threescore and two weeks,.... To be reckoned from the end of the seven weeks, or forty nine years, which, added to them, make four hundred and eighty three years:

shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself; by whom is designed the same with Messiah the Prince in Daniel 9:25, not Onias the high priest, as a late writerF7Scheme of literal Prophecy, &c. p. 183. would have it, an upright person, and of great holiness, taken off by an unjust death; since he was dead many years before the expiration of these weeks; nor Hyrcanus the high priest, slain by Herod, as EusebiusF8Demonstrat. Evangel. l. 8. p. 396, 397. thinks; in whom the succession of the ancient priests terminated, and with whom the priestly unction perished; which indeed bids fairer than the former; but he was not a person of so much note as to be pointed at in such a prophecy; besides, the priesthood continued much longer: nor is King Agrippa intended, as Jarchi and Abarbinel, who, they say, was the last king of the Jews, and was slain by Vespasian at the destruction of Jerusalem; which is not true; he was not properly king of the Jews, having only Galilee for his jurisdiction; was not slain by Vespasian; was a confederate of the Romans, lived some years after the destruction of the city, and at last died in peace; but Jesus the true Messiah is intended, with whom the character, dates, and death, and the manner of it, entirely agree: now to his death were to be four hundred and eighty three years; which years ended, as we have observed, in the thirty third year of the vulgar era of Christ, and the nineteenth of Tiberius; when Jesus the true Messiah was cut off in a judicial way; not for any sins of his own, but for the sins of his people, to make satisfaction for them, and to obtain their redemption and salvation; see Isaiah 53:8, or "he is not", as Jarchi, no more in the land of the living, is dead; see Jeremiah 31:15, or "there is", or "will be, none for him", or "with him"F9ואין לו "et non erit ei", Pagninus; "et nullus erit pro co", Vatablus. , to help and assist him in his great work, Isaiah 63:5. The Vulgate Latin version is, "they shall not be his people"; the Jews rejecting him shall have a "loammi" upon them, and be no more the people of God. GussetiusF11Comment. Ebr. p. 33. better renders it, "he hath not"; or he has nothing, so Cocceius; all things were wanted by him, that is, by Christ; he had neither riches, nor clothes, nor any to stand by him, or to accompany him:

and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; that is, the people of the Romans, under Vespasian their prince, emperor, and general, should, in a little time after the cutting off of the Messiah, enter into the land of Judea, and destroy the city of Jerusalem, and the temple that stood in it; though some understand this of Messiah the Prince that should come in his power, and in a way of judgment upon the Jewish nation, and destroy them for their rejection of him; whose people the Romans would be, and under whose direction, and by whose orders, all these judgments should be brought upon the Jews; but many of the Jewish writers themselves interpret it of Vespasian, as Aben Ezra, Jarchi, Abarbinel, and Jacchiades:

and the end thereof shall be with a flood: the end of the city and temple, and of the whole nation, should be by the Roman army, which, like a flood, would overspread the land, and carry all before it. It denotes the number, power, and irresistible force of the enemy, and the sad devastation made by them:

and unto the end of the war desolations are determined; from the beginning of the war by the Romans with the Jews, to the end of it, there would be nothing but continual desolations; a dreadful havoc and ruin everywhere; and all this appointed and determined by the Lord, as a just punishment for their sins.

Copyright Statement
The New John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible Modernised and adapted for the computer by Larry Pierce of Online Bible. All Rights Reserved, Larry Pierce, Winterbourne, Ontario.
A printed copy of this work can be ordered from: The Baptist Standard Bearer, 1 Iron Oaks Dr, Paris, AR, 72855
Bibliographical Information
Gill, John. "Commentary on Daniel 9:26". "The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible". https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/geb/daniel-9.html. 1999.

Geneva Study Bible

And after threescore and two x weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but y not for himself: and the people of the z prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof [shall be] with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

(x) In this week of the seventy, will Christ come and preach and suffer death.

(y) He will seem to have no beauty, nor to be of any estimation; (Isaiah 53:2).

(z) Meaning Titus, Vespasians's son, who would come and destroy both the temple, and the people, without any hope of recovery.

Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliographical Information
Beza, Theodore. "Commentary on Daniel 9:26". "The 1599 Geneva Study Bible". https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/gsb/daniel-9.html. 1599-1645.

Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

after threescore and two weeks — rather, the threescore and two weeks. In this verse, and in Daniel 9:27, Messiah is made the prominent subject, while the fate of the city and sanctuary are secondary, being mentioned only in the second halves of the verses. Messiah appears in a twofold aspect, salvation to believers, judgment on unbelievers (Luke 2:34; compare Malachi 3:1-6; Malachi 4:1-3). He repeatedly, in Passion week, connects His being “cut off” with the destruction of the city, as cause and effect (Matthew 21:37-41; Matthew 23:37, Matthew 23:38; Luke 21:20-24; Luke 23:28-31). Israel might naturally expect Messiah‘s kingdom of glory, if not after the seventy years‘ captivity, at least at the end of the sixty-two weeks; but, instead of that, shall be His death, and the consequent destruction of Jerusalem.

not for himself — rather, “there shall be nothing to Him” [Hengstenberg]; not that the real object of His first coming (His spiritual kingdom) should be frustrated; but the earthly kingdom anticipated by the Jews should, for the present, come to naught, and not then be realized. Tregelles refers the title, “the Prince” (Daniel 9:25), to the time of His entering Jerusalem on an ass‘s colt, His only appearance as a king, and six days afterwards put to death as “King of the Jews.”

the people of the prince — the Romans, led by Titus, the representative of the world power, ultimately to be transferred to Messiah, and so called by Messiah‘s title, “the Prince”; as also because sent by Him, as His instrument of judgment (Matthew 22:7).

end thereof — of the sanctuary. Tregelles takes it, “the end of the Prince,” the last head of the Roman power, Antichrist.

with a flood — namely, of war (Psalm 90:5; Isaiah 8:7, Isaiah 8:8; Isaiah 28:18). Implying the completeness of the catastrophe, “not one stone left on another.”

unto the end of the war — rather, “unto the end there is war.”

determined — by God‘s decree (Isaiah 10:23; Isaiah 28:22).

Copyright Statement
These files are a derivative of an electronic edition prepared from text scanned by Woodside Bible Fellowship.
This expanded edition of the Jameison-Faussett-Brown Commentary is in the public domain and may be freely used and distributed.
Bibliographical Information
Jamieson, Robert, D.D.; Fausset, A. R.; Brown, David. "Commentary on Daniel 9:26". "Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible". https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/jfb/daniel-9.html. 1871-8.

Keil & Delitzsch Old Testament Commentary

After the threescore and two weeks, i.e., in the seventieth שׁבוּע, shall the Messiah be cut off . - From the אחרי ( after ) it does not with certainty follow that the “cutting off” of the Maschiach falls wholly in the beginning of the seventieth week, but only that the “cutting off” shall constitute the first great event of this week, and that those things which are mentioned in the remaining part of the verse shall then follow. The complete designation of the time of the “cutting off” can only be found from the whole contents of Daniel 9:26, Daniel 9:27. נכרת, from כּרּת, to hew down, to fell, to cut to pieces, signifies to be rooted up, destroyed, annihilated, and denotes generally a violent kind of death, though not always, but only the uprooting from among the living, or from the congregation, and is therefore the usual expression for the destruction of the ungodly - e.g., Psalms 37:9; Proverbs 2:22 - without particularly designating the manner in which this is done. From יכּרת it cannot thus be strictly proved that this part of the verse announces the putting to death of an anointed one, or of the Messiah. Of the word Maschiach three possible interpretations have been given: 1. That the Maschiach Nagid of Daniel 9:25, the Maschiach of Daniel 9:26, and the Nagid of Daniel 9:26, are three different persons; 2. that all the three expressions denote one and the same person; and 3. that the Maschiach Nagid of Daniel 9:25 and the Maschiach of Daniel 9:26 are the same person, and that the Nagid of Daniel 9:26 is another and a different person. The first of these has been maintained by J. D. Michaelis, Jahn. Ebrard understands by all the three expressions the Messiah, and supposes that he is styled fully Maschiach Nagid in Daniel 9:25 in order that His calling and His dignity ( משׁיח ), as well as His power and strength ( נגיד ), might be designated; in Daniel 9:26, משׁיח, the anointed, where mention is made of His sufferings and His rejection; in Daniel 9:26, נגיד, the prince, where reference is made to the judgment which He sends (by the Romans on apostate Jerusalem). But this view is refuted by the circumstance that הבּא ( that is to come ) follows נגיד, whereby the prince is represented as first coming, as well as by the circumstance that הבּא נגיד, who destroys the city and the sanctuary, whose end shall be with a flood, consequently cannot be the Messiah, but is the enemy of the people and kingdom of God, who shall arise (Daniel 7:24-25) in the last time. But if in Daniel 9:26 the Nagid is different from the Maschiach, then both also appear to be different from the Maschiach Nagid of Daniel 9:25. The circumstance that in Daniel 9:26 משׁיח has neither the article nor the addition נגיד following it, appears to be in favour of this opinion. The absence of the one as well as the other denotes that משׁיח, after that which is said of Him, in consideration of the connection of the words, needs no more special description. If we observe that the destruction of the city and the sanctuary is so connected with the Maschiach that we must consider this as the immediate or first consequence of the cutting off of the Maschiach, and that the destruction shall be brought about by a Nagid, then by Maschiach we can understand neither a secular prince or king nor simply a high priest, but only an anointed one who stands in such a relation to the city and sanctuary, that with his being “cut off” the city and the sanctuary lose not only their protection and their protector, but the sanctuary also loses, at the same time, its character as the sanctuary, which the Maschiach had given to it. This is suitable to no Jewish high priest, but only to the Messias whom Jehovah anointed to be a Priest-King after the order of Melchizedek, and placed as Lord over Zion, His holy hill. We agree therefore with Hävernick, Hengstenberg, Auberlen, and Kliefoth, who regard the Maschiach of this verse as identical with the Maschiach Nagid of Daniel 9:25, as Christ, who in the fullest sense of the word is the Anointed; and we hope to establish this view more fully in the following exposition of the historical reference of this word of the angel.

But by this explanation of the משׁיח we are not authorized to regard the word יכּרת as necessarily pointing to the death of the Messias, the crucifixion of Christ, since יכּרת, as above shown, does not necessarily denote a violent death. The right interpretation of this word depends on the explanation of the words לו ואין which follow - words which are very differently interpreted by critics. The supposition is grammatically inadmissible that לו אין = איננּוּ (Michaelis, Hitzig), although the lxx in the Codex Chisianus have translated them by καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ; and in general all those interpretations which identify אין with לא, as e.g., et non sibi , and not for himself (Vitringa, Rosenmüller, Hävernick, and others). For אין is never interchanged with לא, but is so distinguished from it that לא, non, is negation purely, while אין, “it is not,” denies the existence of the thing; cf. Hengstenberg's Christol . iii. p. 81f., where all the passages which Gesenius refers to as exemplifying this exchange are examined and rightly explained, proving that אין is never used in the sense of לא . Still less is לו to be taken in the sense of לו (<) אשׁר, “there shall not then be one who (belongs) to him;” for although the pronomen relat . may be wanting in short sentences, yet that can be only in such as contain a subject to which it can refer. But in the אין no subject is contained, but only the non-existence is declared; it cannot be said: no one is, or nothing is. In all passages where it is thus rightly translated a participle follows, in which the personal or actual subject is contained, of which the non-existence is predicated. לו (<) אין without anything following is elliptical, and the subject which is not, which will not be, is to be learned from the context or from the matter itself. The missing subject here cannot be משׁיח, because לו points back to משׁיח ; nor can it be עם, people (Vulg., Grotius), or a descendant (Wieseler), or a follower (Auberlen), because all these words are destitute of any support from the context, and are brought forward arbitrarily. Since that which “is not to Him” is not named, we must thus read the expression in its undefined universality: it is not to Him, viz., that which He must have, to be the Maschiach . We are not by this to think merely of dominion, people, sanctuary, but generally of the place which He as Maschiach has had, or should have, among His people and in the sanctuary, but, by His being “cut off,” is lost. This interpretation is of great importance in guiding to a correct rendering of יכּרת ; for it shows that יכּרת does not denote the putting to death, or cutting off of existence, but only the annihilation of His place as Maschiach among His people and in His kingdom. For if after His “cutting off” He has not what He should have, it is clear that annihilation does not apply to Him personally, but only that He has lost His place and function as the Maschiach .

(Note: Kranichfeld quite appropriately compares the strong expression יכּרת with “the equally strong יבלּא ( shall wear out ) in Daniel 7:25, spoken of that which shall befall the saints on the part of the enemy of God in the last great war. As by this latter expression destruction in the sense of complete annihilation cannot be meant, since the saints personally exist after the catastrophe (cf. Daniel 9:27, Daniel 9:22, Daniel 9:18), so also by this expression here ( יכּרת ) we are not to understand annihilation.”)

In consequence of the cutting off of the משׁיח destruction falls upon the city and the sanctuary. This proceeds from the people of the prince who comes. ישׁחית, to destroy, to ruin, is used, it is true, of the desolating of countries, but predicated of a city and sanctuary it means to overthrow ; cf. e.g., Genesis 19:13., where it is used of the destruction of Sodom; and even in the case of countries the השׁחית consists in the destruction of men and cattle; cf. Jeremiah 36:29.

The meaning of הבּא נגיד עם depends chiefly on the interpretation of the הבּא . This we cannot, with Ebrard, refer to עם . Naturally it is connected with נגיד, not only according to the order of the words, but in reality, since in the following verse (Daniel 9:27) the people are no longer spoken of, but only the actions and proceedings of the prince are described. הבּא does not mean qui succedit (Roesch, Maurer), but is frequently used by Daniel of a hostile coming; cf. Daniel 1:1; Daniel 11:10,Daniel 11:13, Daniel 11:15. But in this sense הבּא appears to be superfluous, since it is self-evident that the prince, if he will destroy Jerusalem, must come or draw near. One also must not say that הבּא designates the prince as one who was to come ( ἐρχόμενος ), since from the expression “coming days,” as meaning “future days,” it does not follow that a “coming prince” is a “future prince.” The הבּא with the article: “he who comes, or will come,” denotes much rather the נגיד (which is without the article) as such an one whose coming is known, of whom Daniel has heard that he will come to destroy the people of God. But in the earlier revelations Daniel heard of two princes who shall bring destruction on his people: in Daniel 7:8, Daniel 7:24., of Antichrist; and in Daniel 8:9., 23ff., of Antiochus. To one of these the הבּא points. Which of the two is meant must be gathered from the connection, and this excludes the reference to Antiochus, and necessitates our thinking of the Antichrist.

In the following clause: “ and his end with the flood,” the suffix refers simply to the hostile Nagid, whose end is here emphatically placed over against his coming (Kran., Hofm., Kliefoth). Preconceived views as to the historical interpretation of the prophecy lie at the foundation of all other references. The Messianic interpreters, who find in the words a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, and thus understand by the Nagid Titus, cannot apply the suffix to Nagid . M. Geier, Hävernick, and others, therefore, refer it (the suffix) to the city and the sanctuary; but that is grammatically inadmissible, since העיר ( the city ) is gen faem . Aub. and others refer it, therefore, merely to the sanctuary; but the separation of the city from the sanctuary is quite arbitrary. Vitringa, C. B. Michaelis, Hgstb., interpret the suffix as neuter, and refer it to ישׁחית ( shall destroy ), or, more correctly, to the idea of destroying comprehended in it, for they understand שׁטף of a warlike overflowing flood: “and the end of it shall be (or: it shall end) in the flood.” On the other hand, v. Lengerke and Kliefoth have rightly objected to this view. “This reference of the suffix,” they say, “is inadmissibly harsh; the author must have written erroneously, since he suggested the reference of the suffix to עם or to נגיד . One cannot think of what is meant by the end of the destruction, since the destruction itself is the end; a flood may, it is true, be an emblem of a warlike invasion of a country, but it never signifies the warlike march, the expedition.” There thus remains nothing else than to apply the suffix to the Nagid, the prince. קץ can accordingly only denote the destruction of the prince. Hitzig's interpretation, that קצּו is the result of his coming, refutes itself.

In בּשׁטף the article is to be observed, by which alone such interpretations as “in an overflowing” (Ros., Roed., and others), ” vi quadam ineluctabili oppressus” (Steudel, Maurer), like an overflowing,” and the like, are proved to be verbally inadmissible. The article shows that a definite and well-known overflowing is meant. שׁטף, “overflowing,” may be the emblem of an army spreading itself over the land, as in Daniel 11:10,Daniel 11:22, Daniel 11:26; Isaiah 8:8, or the emblem of a judgment desolating or destroying a city, country, or people; cf. Psalms 32:6; Nahum 1:8; Proverbs 27:4; Psalms 90:5. The first of these interpretations would give this meaning: The prince shall find his end in his warlike expedition; and the article in בּשׁטף would refer back to הבּא . This interpretation is indeed quite possible, but not very probable, because שׁטף would then be the overflowing which was caused by the hostile prince or his coming, and the thought would be this, that he should perish in it. But this agrees neither with the following clause, that war should be to the end, nor with Daniel 7:21, Daniel 7:26, according to which the enemy of God holds the superiority till he is destroyed by the judgment of God. Accordingly, we agree with Wieseler, Hofmann, Kranichfeld, and Kliefoth in adopting the other interpretation of שׁטף, flood, as the figure of the desolating judgment of God, and explain the article as an allusion to the flood which overwhelmed Pharaoh and his host. Besides, the whole passage is, with Maurer and Klief., to be regarded as a relative clause, and to be connected with הבּא : the people of a prince who shall come and find his destruction in the flood.

This verse (Daniel 9:26) contains a third statement, which adds a new element to the preceding. Rosenmüller, Ewald, Hofm., and others connect these into one passage, thus: and to the end of the war a decree of desolations continues. But although קץ, grammatically considered, is the stat. constr ., and might be connected with מלחמה ( war ), yet this is opposed by the circumstance, that in the preceding sentence no mention is expressly made of war; and that if the war which consisted in the destruction of the city should be meant, then מלחמה ought to have the article. From these reasons we agree with the majority of interpreters in regarding מלחמה as the predicate of the passage: “and to the end is war;” but we cannot refer קץ, with Wieseler, to the end of the prince, or, with Häv. and Aub., to the end of the city, because קץ has neither a suffix nor an article. According to the just remark of Hitzig, קץ without any limitation is the end generally, the end of the period in progress, the seventy שׁבעים, and corresponds to סופא עד in Daniel 7:26, to the end of all things, Daniel 12:13 (Klief.). To the end war shall be = war shall continue during the whole of the last שׁבוּע .

The remaining words, שׁממות נחרצת, form an apposition to מלחמה, notwithstanding the objection by Kliefoth, that since desolations are a consequence of the war, the words cannot be regarded as in apposition. For we do not understand why in abbreviated statements the effect cannot be placed in the form of an apposition to the cause. The objection also overlooks the word נחרצת . If desolations are the effect of the war, yet not the decree of the desolations, which can go before the war or can be formed during the war. שׁממות denotes desolation not in an active, but in a passive sense: laid waste, desolated . נחרצת, that which is determined, the irrevocably decreed ; therefore used of divine decrees, and that of decrees with reference to the infliction of punishment; cf. Daniel 9:27; Daniel 11:36; Isaiah 10:23; Isaiah 28:22. Ewald is quite in error when he says that it means “the decision regarding the fearful deeds, the divine decision as it embodies itself in the judgments (Daniel 7:11.) on the world on account of such fearful actions and desolations,” because שׁממות has not the active meaning. Auberlen weakens its force when he renders it “decreed desolations.” “That which is decreed of desolations” is also not a fixed, limited, measured degree of desolations (Hofm., Klief.); for in the word there does not lie so much the idea of limitation to a definite degree, as much rather the idea of the absolute decision, as the connection with כלה in Daniel 9:27, as well as in the two passages from Isaiah above referred to, shows. The thought is therefore this: “Till the end war will be, for desolations are irrevocably determined by God.” Since שׁממות has nothing qualifying it, we may not limit the “decree of desolations” to the laying waste of the city and the sanctuary, but under it there are to be included the desolations which the fall of the prince who destroys the city and the sanctuary shall bring along with it.

Copyright Statement
The Keil & Delitzsch Old Testament Commentary is a derivative of a public domain electronic edition.
Bibliographical Information
Keil, Carl Friedrich & Delitzsch, Franz. "Commentary on Daniel 9:26". https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/kdo/daniel-9.html. 1854-1889.

Wesley's Explanatory Notes

And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

And after — After the seven and the sixty two that followed them.

Not for himself — But for our sakes, and for our salvation.

And the people — The Romans under the conduct of Titus.

Determined — God hath decreed to destroy that place and people, by the miseries and desolations of war.

Copyright Statement
These files are public domain and are a derivative of an electronic edition that is available on the Christian Classics Ethereal Library Website.
Bibliographical Information
Wesley, John. "Commentary on Daniel 9:26". "John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible". https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/wen/daniel-9.html. 1765.

John Trapp Complete Commentary

Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof [shall be] with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

Ver. 26. And after threescore and two weeks.] See on Daniel 9:25. Within these threescore and two weeks befell the Jews many memorable things, as may be seen in Daniel 8:1-27, Daniel 11:1-45.

Shall Messiah be cut off.] Excindetur, not abscindetur, cut off - that is, by wicked hands crucified and slain; [Acts 2:23] not only cast out of the synagogue, and excommunicated, as that malicious Rabbi read and sensed this text. Others of the Jewish doctors, by the evidence of these words, have been compelled to confess that Messiah is already come, and that he was that Jesus whom their forefathers crucified. See for this R. Samuel’s Epistle to R. Isaak, set down at large by Dionys. Carthus. in his commentary on this text. See also R. Osea’s lamentation for this inexpiable guilt of the Jewish nation, recorded by Galatinus, lib. iv. cap. 18. Polanus reporteth that he, living some time in Moravia, where he used the help of some Rabbis for the understanding of the Hebrew tongue, heard them say, that for this ninth chapter’s sake, they acknowledged not Daniel to be authentic, and therefore read it not among the people, lest hereby they should be turned to Christ, finding out how they had been by them deceived.

But not for himself,] i.e., Not for any fault of his, nor yet for any good to himself, but to mankind; whence some render these words, Et non sibi vel nihil ei, There being nothing therein for him: others, When he shall have nothing, i.e., nothing more to do at Jerusalem, but shall utterly relinquish it, and call his people out of it to Pella, &c.

And the people of the prince that shall come,] i.e., Titus’s soldiers, whose rage he himself could not repress, but they would needs burn down the temple, which he would fain have preserved, as one of the world’s wonders. (a) Messiah the prince had a hand in it doubtless, whence also those Roman forces are called his armies. [Matthew 22:7]

Shall destroy the city.] That slaughter house of the saints.

And the sanctuary.] That den of thieves.

And the end thereof shall be with a flood,] i.e., Their extirpation shall be sudden, universal, irresistible, as was Noah’s flood. How this was fulfilled, see Josephus, Hegesippus, Eusebius, &c.

And unto the end of the war, &c.] The Romans shall have somewhat to do; but after tedious wars, they shall effect it.

Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliographical Information
Trapp, John. "Commentary on Daniel 9:26". John Trapp Complete Commentary. https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/jtc/daniel-9.html. 1865-1868.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible

After the threescore and two weeks. i.e. after the seven before, and after the sixty-two that followed them, which all make up sixty-nine, referring the angel’s seventy weeks, which is nothing though no week more be described, because it makes up the number a round number, after the Jewish manner of calculation, and there might be some fragments in the particular reckoning to make up the sum, or it might be finished in the seventieth week, and that was enough to call it seventy weeks, Daniel 9:24.

Shall Messiah be cut off; which word trk signifies cutting off, or cutting down, as a tree, Isaiah 44:14 Jeremiah 10:3. Secondly, it is used for cutting off by capital punishment, Exodus 12:15 30:33,38; whether this be by the signal hand of God, or by the magistrate, for some heinous offence, Leviticus 18:29 20:17 Psalms 37:34. This foreshows that the death of Christ should be as of a condemned malefactor sentenced to death, and that justly. So did the Jews, Christ’s executioners, proclaim that he died for blasphemy, and that he was a devilish impostor, &c. Yea, God himself charged sin upon him and the curse, Isaiah 53:4 2 Corinthians 5:21 Galatians 3:13.

But not for himself; wl Nyaw which being abrupt, is variously rendered and read; some referring it to Christ, and some to the people: and others to both, and all with very probable conjectures, Psalms 22:6,7 Isa 53:3: i.e. not to him: There was none to succour him; or that they would none of him for their Messiah; they set him at nought, and would not have him live, and therefore he would not own them for his people, but cast them off, for thus dying is expressed in short, not to be. Thus Enoch, Genesis 5:24, Joseph, Genesis 42:36, and Rachel’s children, Jeremiah 31:15 Matthew 2:17,18. But our English translation seems to hit the truest sense, i.e. not

for himself. He was innocent and guiltless, he died for others, not for himself, but for our sakes and for our salvation.

The people of the prince that shall come; the Romans under the conduct of Titus Vespantianus. Some will include Christ’s people here, whom he should chiefly gather out of the Roman empire, should ruin that church, and polity, and worship. Desolations are determined; God hath decreed to destroy that place and people by the miseries and desolations of war, i.e. sword, famine, sickness, scattering. All this is signified by

shomemoth: also the profaning of the temple by idols, which are called abominations that make desolate; this was done by the Greeks and Jews before, and the Romans at their siege, and after.

Quest. But some will query, why the angel who was sent to comfort Daniel should insert here this tragical business of destruction and desolation, being beyond the space of seventy weeks?

Answ.

1. That Daniel might be informed of the judgments of God upon that place and people, and the reasons of it, viz. their rejecting and killing Christ.

2. That the spirit of God’s people should not fail when these tragedies were acted; being foretold, thereby they were prepared and fortified against it, and to expect it, and not to be surprised by it when it came.

Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliographical Information
Poole, Matthew, "Commentary on Daniel 9:26". Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible. https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/mpc/daniel-9.html. 1685.

Whedon's Commentary on the Bible

26.R.V. reads, “And after the threescore and two weeks shall the [an] anointed one be cut off.” Delitzsch and Zockler, as recent evangelical scholars generally, accept Onias III as the “anointed one” referred to here. Onias was the last Jewish high priest who ruled in the regular succession. He was deposed by Antiochus about 175 B.C. and murdered 171 B.C. This awful event must have made a tremendous impression upon the Jewish world. (Compare Daniel 11:22; 2 Maccabees 4:35.) Others of the newer critics explain this as referring to the murder of Seleucus Philopator by Heliodorus; but this seems less probable than the above. It is a significant fact that “Jewish exposition in pre-Christian times is united in referring this section [Daniel 9:25-27] to the Maccabean era of tribulation under Antiochus Epiphanes” (Zockler). The older exegetes follow here the punctuation of the A.V. and, uniting the seven with the sixty-two weeks, see a direct reference to Jesus the Messiah, who was cut off at the end of the sixty-nine prophetic weeks. (See note Daniel 9:25 and our remarks on “The Seventy Weeks,” Introduction to Daniel, II, 10.) The argument of Dr. Terry that an (or, “the”) anointed one in Daniel 9:26 should be the same as the anointed one in Daniel 9:25, while valid in ordinary historic narration, does not apply so forcibly in apocalyptic writings, which were made purposely obscure and of a double meaning.

But not for himself — This translation of the Hebrew cannot be defended. The R.V. is better, “and shall have nothing,” or, as the margin, “there shall be none belonging to him” (or, “for him”). Kautzsch renders freely, “without his having any (fault).” There are grammatical objections to every translation and the meaning is very obscure. Behrmann and many others render “and no one follows [succeeds] him.” Most critics who hold the newer interpretation of the passage explain it as meaning that Onias had no legitimate successor. Those who hold to the direct Messianic interpretation, and yet accept the critical Hebrew text generally, take it to mean that the Messiah had no one to stand for him as protector or helper when threatened with death.

The people of the prince that shall come — According to the most common form of the newer critical interpretation this refers to the army of Antiochus (compare Judges 5:2), who came from Rome after the death of Onias and devastated Jerusalem, destroyed the sanctuary, and massacred forty thousand of its inhabitants. For the objection that Antiochus did not literally destroy Jerusalem compare notes Ezekiel 29:8-12. According to the older view this phrase refers to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.

And the end thereof shall be with a flood — In-stead of “the” end R.V. renders “his” end, as also the A.V., in the margin. The difficulty is to know whether the flood sweeps away the sanctuary or the people or the prince. It seems most natural to refer it to the city and sanctuary, over which the invading army sweeps like a deluge (Daniel 11:22; compare Nahum 1:8).

And unto the end of the war — Rather, with R.V., “and even unto the end shall be war; desolations are determined.” Instead of the perfect security, victory, and peace which Daniel at the close of the seventy years’ captivity would probably have expected from the prophecy of Jeremiah which he was reading (Daniel 9:2; compare Jeremiah 29:11; Jeremiah 29:14; Jeremiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:10; Jeremiah 30:19-20; Jeremiah 33:10-16), the “perpetual desolations” which Jeremiah had prophesied against the heathen (Jeremiah 25:12) are now prophesied against Jerusalem clear down to the end of the seventy weeks. Only after these seventy weeks of calamity can the real fulfillment of all Jeremiah’s prophecies of restoration and joy take place.

 

Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliographical Information
Whedon, Daniel. "Commentary on Daniel 9:26". "Whedon's Commentary on the Bible". https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/whe/daniel-9.html. 1874-1909.

Peter Pett's Commentary on the Bible

“And after the sixty two sevens the anointed one will be cut off, and will have nothing, and the people of the coming prince will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And their end will be with a flood. And even to the end there will be war. Desolations are determined.”

Now if we read this verse without preconceived notions, and without a theory to be supported, the natural interpretation of this verse is that the anointed prince, who was to come after the sixty nine ‘sevens’ have passed, will be cut off, and that his people will then destroy the city and the sanctuary. And this is supported by the fact that the prince is a ‘nagid’ (a prince of Israel, see earlier in the passage) in both cases. Note especially that on this interpretation Daniel 9:25 speaks of ‘the anointed one, the prince’, then Daniel 9:26 refers to him first as ‘the anointed one’ and then as ‘the prince’. Thus the three references fit together as referring to the same person in three different ways, the first combining both terms and preparing for the other two.

Indeed on this basis the whole passage fits together. The prince arrives. Rebellion takes place. The prince is cut off (compare Leviticus 7:20; Psalms 37:9; Isaiah 53:8). Then his rebellious people destroy the city and sanctuary. But could this be seen as happening to God’s anointed prince? Could it be that the One for whom Israel has waited should be cut off (put to death for gross sin), and finish up with nothing?

That that could be seen as happening is evidenced by Isaiah’s picture of the anointed prophet who, personifying Israel, comes to proclaim the truth to Israel (Isaiah 49:1-6), is falsely tried, smitten, spat on and shamed (Isaiah 50:6; Isaiah 53:7-8), and sets his face like a flint to go towards his destiny (Isaiah 50:7), with the result that he is made to suffer and is offered as a sacrifice (Isaiah 53:3-5; Isaiah 53:8; Isaiah 53:10-12), thereby accomplishing the will of God (Isaiah 53:10). And finally He is to be exalted, extolled and be very high (Isaiah 52:13). Daniel may well have had this picture and thought in mind, especially if we link it with the anointed prophet in Isaiah 61:1.

The fact is that all were looking forward to the coming of an anointed Prince (Isaiah 11:1-2; Isaiah 9:6-7; Isaiah 55:3; Hosea 3:4-5) or Prophet (Deuteronomy 18:15; Deuteronomy 18:18; Isaiah 42:1-4; Isaiah 49:1-6; Isaiah 53:1-12; Isaiah 61:1-2). But the prophets had come to realise that when such a One came Israel would reject Him, because He would not fulfil their expectations, They would put Him away because He was too righteous (compare Zechariah 13:7). But above all they recognised that somehow, in spite of what they did, God’s purposes would be fulfilled through that rejection.

Of course this picture will not be pleasing to those who want to see Antiochus Epiphanes as the prince who destroys the sanctuary (but why then a nagid?), nor to those who want to see it as referring to Titus or the king of the end days. But it is very questionable whether any of these could be given the title ‘nagid’, which means a prince anointed by God and chosen as His adopted son. Indeed it is difficult to see why Antiochus Epiphanes or the king of the end days should be called ‘prince’ at all, or why they would be spoken of, uniquely, in terms of their people. They are always referred to elsewhere as ‘king’. And there is really no reason why the Roman invasion should not have been attributed to a king, for Titus was acting on his father’s authority. But these difficulties are often simply overlooked because they get in the way of a theory.

A further point to be made is that the reference is to ‘the peopleof the prince who is coming.’ Now if the prince has been cut off we can see immediately why they should be so described. On the other hand Daniel does not otherwise normally refer to ‘the people’. He refers directly to the king or the kingdom, whilst the people who follow the king are assumed. Why then this sudden change? Why say ‘the people of Antiochus’ or ‘the people of Titus’? It is very odd indeed and against all precedent.

However there is one circumstance where ‘the people’ are referred to rather than the prince, and that is in Daniel 7:27 where reference is to the people of God in contrast with the kings and their kingdoms. They are called ‘the people of the saints of the Most High’. There the emphasis is on the people and not the prince. Thus general usage is against the phrase ‘the people of the coming prince’ being seen as signifying a worldly ruler and is in favour of it indicating Israel, although in this case Israel in rebellion.

But how then was this fulfilled? Certainly an ‘anointed prince’ came in Jesus Christ (Jesus the anointed One), and certainly He was put to death and had nothing. And certainly by their act of crucifying Jesus Israel brought on its own head the wrath of God resulting in the destruction of the city and the sanctuary. This was something that Jesus again and again pointed out would happen. The act of rejecting and crucifying Him was constantly connected by Him with the idea of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

They had refused to listen to Him when He sought to gather them as chickens under His wings and their house would therefore be left to them desolate (Matthew 23:37-38; Matthew 24:2; compare John 2:19). The fig tree was to be cursed and the mountain was to be thrown into the sea (Mark 11:21-22). Jesus was confident that the Temple would be destroyed, and that must surely have been with His coming death in mind (Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21). Compare how in the same context in Daniel as this verse Jerusalem’s previous destruction came from a curse on them in Daniel 9:11-12. So by this act of cutting off the Messiah the people are seen by Daniel as again putting themselves under a curse, and thus, by it, bringing about the effective destruction of the city and the sanctuary.

Furthermore it should be noted that very similar language was in fact used by the Jewish historian Josephus in 1st century AD, who also ascribed the destruction of Jerusalem to his own people and their behaviour. He says, ‘I venture to say that the sedition destroyed the city and the Romans destroyed the sedition.’ And again, ‘I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city, and thatfrom this very day may be dated the overthrow of her walls.’ (Italics ours).

And when we look at what happened we can understand why he said it. For the story of the end of Jerusalem in 70 AD is almost unbelievable. The Jews behaved like madmen. They fought each other even while the armies of Rome were approaching the city, and in consequence they sacked much of the city. They even destroyed the grain supplies to prevent their rivals from using them. The different factions then defended different places from which they glared at each other, and made sallies against each other, although in the end also, with much bravery, fighting the Romans. And it must seem very probable that they did deliberately set alight their own temple in order to prevent Titus from desecrating it (Titus had given strict orders for the preservation of the Temple). So the suggestion that they destroyed their own city is certainly historically true, and if Josephus could thus date this destruction of Jerusalem from the death of Ananus, how much more could it be dated from the death of their God sent Messiah.

How poignant is the picture. The city and sanctuary having been built, the anointed prince comes. But the people are so sinful that they ‘cut Him off’, (a phrase which regularly signifies someone cut off for gross sin) and then by their actions bring about the destruction of the very city and sanctuary which they had so longed for. Retribution indeed. By it the sinfulness of man is revealed to its fullest extent. But by it also the city and sanctuary are finished. They are written off. Hope now lies totally in God. In other words this revelation is emphasising that final hope must not be placed in the city of Jerusalem or in the Temple

We must pause for a moment to consider this picture. Daniel has seen and known of the process of Jerusalem’s first destruction, which has witnessed to the sinfulness of his people, he has been informed of the sacrilege to happen against the second temple in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes, which was to be the end of the days of indignation against his people’s sins (Daniel 8:19), and now he learns that Jerusalem and the sanctuary are once more to be destroyed, this time by his own people. The message could only be that once again his people as a whole will fail to truly respond to God, that no hope can be placed in them, even though they have been given another chance.

‘And their end will be with a flood. And even to the end there will be war. Desolations are determined.’ Scripture often describes invaders in terms of a flood. See Daniel 11:22; Isaiah 8:7-8; Isaiah 17:13; Jeremiah 46:8. So Israel having killed their Messiah will experience the flood of God’s anger (Nahum 1:8). Reference is made to ‘their end’, which comes suddenly, and then to ‘the end’. This could be to the end of a new period of God’s indignation against them (compare Daniel 8:19), or possibly to the end of time. Either way it is described in terms of war. Jesus may well have had this verse in mind when He spoke of wars and rumours of wars (Mark 13:7). Some have tried to see ‘even to the end’ as signifying a gap between the sixty ninth and seventieth week. But if that were so it would leave the destruction of the city and the Temple to occur before the gap, and thus in the sixty ninth seven. For their theory it is simply self-defeating. And it is difficult to see ‘to the end’ as signifying any other than what it says. To the end of the seventy ‘sevens’.

‘Desolations are determined.’ The world and its sinfulness is such that there can only be desolations. Man in his inner heart does not change unless transformed by the power of Christ. Thus his continuing sinfulness will result in desolations, and is the reason why God determines desolations on him. War and desolations are to be the future of mankind.

Note On The Prince Who Will Come.

The natural interpretation of the prince who will come in the context, given that the reference is to his people, is that it refers to the prince already described as coming in Daniel 9:25. He has been cut off and therefore his people are left to act on their own. This would tie in with the use of nagid, which almost always refers to a king of Israel appointed by God, and it would also link him and his death with the destruction of the city and the Temple, something which the Gospels do of the death of Jesus.

There is, however, another popular view (although not among most scholars) which attempts to see in this description a reference to a king who will come prior to the second coming of Christ. The idea is that his people are mentioned (which they see as the Romans) pointing to the fact that the king of those final days of the age will also be connected with the Roman empire, a Roman empire that is revived. But this view must be rejected for a number of reasons:

· Firstly because the term nagid is not the term that Daniel would use of such a king. He would use either sar or melech. He only elsewhere uses nagid of an Israelite prince.

· Secondly because the people who destroyed the city and Temple would not be his people. They would be the people of the emperor who was ruling the Roman empire at the time. Thus it is far too subtle. Surely had Daniel intended to convey such a message he could have done it by directly referring to the king and indicating his connection with the fourth beast. It took the subtle minds of the modern era to weave together such a pattern from different parts of Daniel.

· Thirdly because it seems a very backhand way in which to introduce such an important personage without giving any further information about him.

· Fourthly because those who hold this view then see him as a foreigner ‘confirming covenant’ with the Jews. But in this case he would be making the covenant not confirming it. Why then use the idea of ‘confirming’. And besides the word ‘covenant’ is not the one used of treaties and alliances made by foreign kings in Daniel. It is elsewhere only used of the covenant with God, which would then make sense of it being confirmed because it was already in existence, and having been broken required confirmation.

· Fifthly because normally in Hebrew the antecedent of ‘he’ would be sought in the subject of a previous sentence unless there were good grounds for seeing otherwise. And a previously unmentioned prince would hardly be good grounds.

Thus everything about this interpretation is wrong.

End of note.

Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliographical Information
Pett, Peter. "Commentary on Daniel 9:26". "Peter Pett's Commentary on the Bible ". https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/pet/daniel-9.html. 2013.

Expository Notes of Dr. Thomas Constable

Most Christian interpreters have taken the cutting off of Messiah as a reference to Jesus Christ"s death. He had nothing then in a very real sense.

The prince who will come seems to be a different person from the Messiah. A legitimate translation is "the people of a ruler who will come." [Note: Archer, " Daniel," p116.] His people, not he himself, would destroy the city. This happened in A.D70 when the Roman army under Titus leveled Jerusalem. The prince who will come, however, was evidently not Titus but a future ruler, namely, the Antichrist ( Daniel 7:8). Titus made no covenant with the Jews ( Daniel 9:27). However, Titus did initially what this prince will do ultimately. Jerusalem did not end because of a literal flood of water in Titus" day, but Roman soldiers overwhelmed it (cf. Daniel 11:10; Daniel 11:22; Daniel 11:26; Daniel 11:40; Isaiah 8:8). War preceded the destruction. Gabriel announced that God had determined the city"s desolation (cf. Matthew 24:7-22).

Some interpreters believe that the end of this verse describes conditions that have followed Titus" destruction and continue even today. [Note: E.g, Pentecost, " Daniel," p1364; and Archer, " Daniel," p117.] Others think it only describes what Titus did. [Note: E.g, Walvoord, Daniel . . ., p231.]

Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliographical Information
Constable, Thomas. DD. "Commentary on Daniel 9:26". "Expository Notes of Dr. Thomas Constable". https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/dcc/daniel-9.html. 2012.

Joseph Benson's Commentary of the Old and New Testaments

Daniel 9:26. After threescore and two weeks (counting from the expiration of the first interval) shall Messiah be cut off — “This long interval extends from the 93d Olympiad to the 202d Olympiad, or four hundred and thirty- four years; ending with the sixty-ninth [prophetic] week, and with the commencing of our Lord’s ministry. No prophetic characters are here given of the long interval; but they are supplied from other predictions of this great prophet, which respect the Roman people and empire, the Persian monarchy, Alexander and his successors; particularly by that circumstantial prophecy in the eleventh chapter, respecting the Lagidæ and Seleucidæ, and extending to the antichristian persecutions and idolatries typified by those of Antiochus Epiphanes. These four centuries include the most interesting periods of profane history, and their chronology is so well ascertained as to make the computation of Daniel’s weeks mathematically exact. For sixty-two weeks, or four hundred and thirty-four years, added to seven weeks, or forty-nine years, are equal to four hundred and eighty- three years. After which period, or in the last one week, containing seven years, the Messiah should be cut off. The title of MESSIAH is, by way of eminence, peculiar to Christ. It was first used in this prophecy in that appropriate sense. No other application of this title ever obtained among the ancient Jews. Nor can it, without absurdity, be applied to any civil or ecclesiastical prince, much less to a succession in the high-priesthood. It is here used personally, proper to some one anointed; and to whom it is proper is decided by that emphatic circumstance, Messiah shall be CUT OFF, an expression used in Scripture to denote a judicial sentence and a violent death; BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF — Isaiah gives an exact comment on both these expressions, Isaiah 53:8. HE WAS CUT OFF out of the land of the living; FOR THE TRANSGRESSION OF MY PEOPLE was he stricken.” — Dr. Apthorp.

And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city, &c. — Thus to the death of Christ the angel immediately subjoins the excision of Jerusalem. The people here spoken of are the Romans, and the prince that should come, may mean, as some think, the Messiah; the Romans being called his people, both on account of their present subserviency to his will, and their future conversion to his faith; HE sent forth HIS armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city, Matthew 22:7. Or, the prince that should come may be understood of Titus Vespasian, of whom the Roman writers speak as if his military glory chiefly resulted from the taking of Jerusalem. “The actions of this prince, in the conduct of this memorable siege, are related in the fifth and sixth books of Josephus; the most tragical event in history was effected by a prince whose clemency made him ‘the delight of human-kind,’ and who saw, with generous reluctance, the horrors of his own victory. — Jos., 7:5. 2. It is thus Divine Providence distinguishes its counsels and instruments; and the victor himself acknowledged that ‘God was his assistant, that none but God could have ejected the Jews from so strong fortifications,’ Josephus Daniel 6:9. 1. They shall destroy the CITY and the SANCTUARY — The specification is remarkable; as Jerusalem, in effect, sustained two separate sieges; one, of the lower city; the other, of the temple, or sanctuary of strength, as our prophet elsewhere styles it, chap. Josephus Daniel 11:31, as being not only a magnificent temple newly rebuilt, but a strong fortress, which was consumed by their own fires, against the intention and efforts of their conqueror. — Josephus Daniel 6:4, 7.” The end thereof shall be with a flood — The symbol of invading armies:

— Aggeribus ruptis cum spumeus amnis Exiit, oppositasque evicit gurgite moles, Fertur in arva furens cumulo, camposque per omnes, Cum stabulis armenta trahit. VIRG. ÆN. 2:496.

Not with so fierce a rage the foaming flood Roars, when he finds his rapid course withstood; Bears down the dams with unresisted sway, And sweeps the cattle and the cots away. DRYDEN.

And unto the end of the war desolations are determined — “Which marks the irrevocable decree of Heaven, and the completeness of the devastation, after a continued war of more than seven years.” — Dr. Apthorp.

Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliographical Information
Benson, Joseph. "Commentary on Daniel 9:26". Joseph Benson's Commentary. https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/rbc/daniel-9.html. 1857.

George Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary

Weeks, or four hundred and thirty-eight years, which elapsed from the twentieth of Artaxerxes to the death of Christ, according to the most exact chronologists. (Calmet) --- Slain. Protestant: "cut off, but not for himself, and the people of the prince that," &c. (Haydock) --- St. Jerome and some manuscripts read, Christus, et non erit ejus. The sense is thus suspended. The Jews lose their prerogative of being God's people. (Calmet) --- Christ will not receive them again. (St. Jerome) -- Greek: "the unction shall be destroyed, and there shall not be judgment in him." The priesthood and royal dignity is taken from the Jews. (Theod.) --- The order of succession among the high priests was quite deranged, while the country was ruled by the Romans, and by Herod, a foreigner. (Calmet) --- Leader. The Romans under Titus. (Challoner; Calmet)

Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliographical Information
Haydock, George Leo. "Commentary on Daniel 9:26". "George Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary". https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hcc/daniel-9.html. 1859.

E.W. Bullinger's Companion Bible Notes

after threescore and two weeks. The definite Article here marks this period, as the one just mentioned in Daniel 9:24, i.e. after the 483 years. How long "after" is not stated; but it must surely be either immediately or very soon after the Messiah was thus presented and proclaimed in and to Jerusalem as the Prince. The decree was issued in the month of Nisan, the same month as the events in Matthew 21:1, Matthew 26:61. Compare Zechariah 9:9. Luke 19:41-44 ("this thy day").

threescore and two: i.e. the sixty-two sevens (= 434 years). See note on Daniel 9:25.

cut off: i.e. in death. Hebrew. karath (Genesis 9:11. Deuteronomy 20:20. Jeremiah 11:19. Psalms 37:9). Compare Hebrew. gazar (Isaiah 53:8).

but not for Himself = but no sign of aught for Him: i.e. He shall be rejected and crucified, and shall not then enter on the kingdom for which He came. It will be rejected, and therefore become in abeyance. See Joh .

-26 the people: i.e. the Roman people. Compare Luke 19:41-44; Luke 21:20.

the prince that shall come = a prince, &c. This is "the little horn" of Daniel 7:8, Daniel 7:24-26; Daniel 8:9-12, Daniel 8:23-25. See App-89.

shall destroy the city, &c. See Matthew 21:41; Matthew 22:7. This also was "after threescore and two weeks", but not within the last seven; which are confined to the doings of "the prince"s people, the people that is coming" ("the little horn") after the doings of "the people" in the destruction of the city, which ends Daniel 9:26. What "the little horn" will do is stated in the words which follow. Antiochus never did this. He defiled it, but left it uninjured.

the end thereof: or, his own end [come]: i.e. the end of the desolator looking on to the end of the last seven years.

and unto the end of the war = up to the full end of the war (i.e. the end of the last seven years).

desolations = desolate places. Compare Matthew 23:38.

determined. See note on "the wall", Daniel 9:25.

Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliographical Information
Bullinger, Ethelbert William. "Commentary on Daniel 9:26". "E.W. Bullinger's Companion bible Notes". https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bul/daniel-9.html. 1909-1922.

Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Unabridged

And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

After threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off - rather, after the threescore and two years. In this verse and Daniel 9:27 Messiah is made the prominent subject, while the fate of the city and sanctuary is secondary, being mentioned only in the second halves of the verses. Messiah appears in a two-fold aspect, bringing salvation to believers, judgment on unbelievers (Luke 2:34 : cf. Malachi 3:1-6; Malachi 4:1-3). He repeatedly, in Passion week, connects His being "cut off" With the destruction of the city, as cause and effect (Matthew 21:37-41; Matthew 23:37-38; Luke 21:20-24; Luke 23:28-31). Israel might naturally expect Messiah's kingdom of glory, if not after the 70 years' captivity, at least at the end of the sixty-two weeks; but, instead of that, shall be His death, and the consequent destruction of Jerusalem.

Not for himself - rather, 'there shall be nothing to Him' (Hengstengberg); not that the real object of His first coming (His, spiritual kingdom) should be frustrated; but the earthly kingdom anticipated by the Jews should, for the present, come to nought, and not then be realized. Tregelles refers the title,"the Prince" (Daniel 9:25, "the Messiah the Prince"), to the time of His entering Jerusalem on a donkey colt, His only appearance as a King, and six days afterward being put to death as "King of the Jews."

And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary - the Romans, led by Titus, the representative of the world-power, which is ultimately to be transferred to Messiah: Titus is therefore called by Messiah's title, "the prince;" as also because he was sent by Him, as His instrument of judgment (Matthew 22:7).

And the end thereof - of the sanctuary. Tregelles takes it, 'the end of the prince,' the last head of the Roman power, Antichrist.

Shall be with a flood - namely, of war (Psalms 90:5, "Thou carriest them away as with a flood;" Isaiah 8:7-8, "Behold the Lord bringeth up upon them the waters of the river, strong and many, even the king of Assyria;" Isaiah 28:18). Implying the completeness of, the catastrophe, "not one stone left on another" (Luke 19:44).

Unto the end of the war - rather, 'unto the end there is war.'

Desolations are determined - by God's decree (Isaiah 10:23; Isaiah 28:22).

Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliographical Information
Jamieson, Robert, D.D.; Fausset, A. R.; Brown, David. "Commentary on Daniel 9:26". "Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Unabridged". https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/jfu/daniel-9.html. 1871-8.

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(26) After threescore and two weeks.—These words can only mean that in the seventieth week the Anointed one shall be cut off. Observe the care with which the seventy weeks are arranged in a series of the form 7 + 62 + 1. During the period of seven weeks Jerusalem is to be rebuilt. The “troublous times” are not to be restricted to this period, but may apply to the sixty-two weeks which follow. After the end of the sixty-nine weeks Messiah is to be cut off. By “Messiah” we must understand the same person who is spoken of in Daniel 9:25. It should also be observed that the word “prince,” which is applied to Messiah in Daniel 9:25, is here used of another person—some secular prince, who stands in opposition to the Messiah. The Greek versions render “unction” instead of “anointed,” whence Jacob of Edessa explains “the cutting off” to mean “the cessation of the unction by which judgment and sovereignty were established.” The word “to cut off,” however, applies to a person more appropriately than to a thing. It is frequently used of excommunication, e.g., Exodus 30:33; Exodus 30:38, Psalms 37:9, and must not be mistaken for the word “to cut off” (Isaiah 53:8).

But not for himself.—On the marginal rendering comp. John 14:30. Literally the words mean, and He has not, but what it is that He loses is left indefinite. Taking the sense according to the context, the meaning is either that He has no more a people, or that His office of Messiah amongst His people ceases.

That shall come.—These words imply coming with hostile intent, as Daniel 1:1; Daniel 11:10. Two such princes have been already mentioned (Daniel 7:23, &c., Daniel 8:23, &c.), the one being Antiochus, the other his great antitype, namely, Antichrist. Are we to identify this “prince” with either of these? Apparently not. Another typical prince is here introduced to our notice, who shall destroy the city and the sanctuary after the “cutting off” or rejection of the Messiah. But it must be noticed that the work of destruction is here attributed to the “people,” and not to the “prince.”

The end thereof.—It is not clear what end or whose end is signified. According to grammatical rules, the possessive pronoun may either refer to “sanctuary, the last substantive, or to “prince,” the chief nominative in the sentence. The use of the word “flood” (Daniel 11:22) (comp. “overflow,” Daniel 11:26) makes it, at first sight, more plausible to think of the end of a person than of a thing. (Comp. also Nahum 1:8.) But upon comparing this clause with the following, it appears that by “the end” is meant the whole issue of the invasion. This is stated to be desolation, such as is caused by a deluge.

Unto the end.—That is, until the end of the seventy weeks, desolations are decreed. The words recall Isaiah 10:22-23.

Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliographical Information
Ellicott, Charles John. "Commentary on Daniel 9:26". "Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers". https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/ebc/daniel-9.html. 1905.

Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
Messiah
Psalms 22:15; Isaiah 53:8; Mark 9:12; Luke 24:26,46; John 11:51,52; 12:32-34; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 3:13; 1 Peter 2:21,24; 3:18
but not
or, and shall have nothing.
John 14:30
and the people, etc
or, and (the Jews) shall be no more his people.
11:17; Hosea 1:9
or, and the Prince's (Messiah's, ver
25,) future people. The Romans, who under Titus, after the expiration of the 70 weeks, destroyed the temple and the city, and dispersed the Jews.
the prince
Matthew 22:2,7; 23:38; 24:2; Mark 13:2; Luke 19:43,44; 21:6,24; Acts 6:13,14
and the end
Matthew 24:6-14; Mark 13:7
with
11:10; Isaiah 8:7; Jeremiah 46:7; Amos 8:8; 9:5; Nahum 1:8
desolations are determined
or, it shall be cut off by desolations
Reciprocal: Genesis 3:15 - thou;  Genesis 8:16 - GeneralLeviticus 4:4 - lay his hand;  Numbers 24:24 - and shall afflict Eber;  Deuteronomy 28:49 - bring a nation;  Deuteronomy 28:52 - General2 Samuel 21:5 - devised;  Psalm 88:16 - cut me;  Psalm 94:23 - cut them;  Psalm 124:4 - the waters;  Isaiah 28:18 - when;  Isaiah 28:22 - a consumption;  Isaiah 64:10 - GeneralJeremiah 11:19 - destroy;  Jeremiah 51:42 - GeneralJeremiah 51:51 - for strangers;  Ezekiel 26:19 - bring;  Daniel 2:40 - the fourth;  Daniel 8:11 - and the place;  Daniel 8:19 - the last;  Daniel 11:22 - with;  Daniel 11:36 - for;  Daniel 12:1 - there shall;  Haggai 1:4 - and;  Zechariah 5:9 - for;  Zechariah 11:6 - into the;  Zechariah 11:10 - Beauty;  Malachi 4:6 - lest;  Matthew 17:23 - they shall;  Matthew 21:41 - He will;  Matthew 24:21 - GeneralMatthew 26:24 - Son of man goeth;  Matthew 26:56 - that;  Matthew 27:50 - yielded;  Mark 10:45 - and to;  Mark 12:9 - he will;  Mark 13:19 - in those;  Mark 14:21 - goeth;  Luke 5:35 - when;  Luke 9:22 - GeneralLuke 13:35 - your;  Luke 17:37 - wheresoever;  Luke 18:31 - and;  Luke 21:22 - all;  Luke 23:31 - GeneralJohn 1:41 - the Messias;  John 10:15 - and I;  John 11:48 - and the;  John 19:30 - It is;  Acts 3:18 - all;  Acts 8:33 - for;  Acts 13:41 - for;  Acts 18:5 - was Christ;  Romans 4:25 - Who was;  Romans 9:28 - and cut;  Philippians 2:7 - made;  Hebrews 9:15 - means

Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliographical Information
Torrey, R. A. "Commentary on Daniel 9:26". "The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge". https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/tsk/daniel-9.html.

Calvin's Commentary on the Bible

Here Daniel treats of the sixty-two weeks which elapsed between the sixth year of Darius and the baptism of Christ, when the Gospel began to be promulgated, but at the same time he does not neglect the seven weeks of which he had been speaking. For they comprehend the space of time which intervened between the Persian monarchy and the second edict which again granted liberty to the people after the death of Cambyses. After the sixty-two weeks which should succeed the seven former ones, Messiah shall be cut off, says he. Here the angel predicts the death of Christ. The Jews refer this to Agrippa, but this, as we have already observed, is utterly nugatory and foolish. Eusebius and others refer it to Aristobulus, but this is equally destitute of reason. Therefore the angel speaks of the only Mediator, as in the former verse he had said, until Christ the Leader The extension of this to all the priesthood is both forced and absurd. The angel rather means this — Christ should then be manifest to undertake the government of his people; or, in other words, until Messiah shall appear and commence his reign. We have already remarked upon those who erroneously and childishly explain the name “Leader,” as if it were inferior in dignity to that of king. As the angel had used the name “Christ” in the sense of Mediator, so he repeats it in this passage in the same sense. And surely, as he had formerly treated of those singular marks of God’s favor, by which the new Church was to surpass the old, we cannot understand the passage otherwise than of Christ alone, of whom the priests and kings under the Law were equally a type. The angel, then, here asserts, Christ should die, and at the same time he specifies the kind of death by saying, nothing shall remain to him. This short clause may be taken in various senses, yet I do not hesitate to represent the angel’s meaning to be this — Christ should so die as to be entirely reduced to nothing. Some expound it thus, — -the city or the people shall be as nothing to him; meaning, he shall be divorced from the people, and their adoption shall cease, since we know the Jews to have so fallen away from true piety by their perfidy as to be entirely alienated from God, and to have lost the name of a Church. But that is forced. Others think it means, it shall be neither hostile nor favorable; and others, nothing shall remain to him in the sense of being destitute of all help; but all these comments appear to me too frigid. The genuine sense, I have no doubt, is as follows, — the death of Christ should be without any attractiveness or loveliness, as Isaiah says. (Isaiah 53:2.) In truth, the angel informs us of the ignominious character of Christ’s death, as if he should vanish from the sight of men through want of comeliness. Nothing, therefore, shall remain to him, says he; and the obvious reason is, because men would think him utterly abolished.

He now adds, The leader of the coming people shall destroy the city and the sanctuary Here the angel inserts what rather concerns the end of the chapter, as he will afterwards return to Christ. He here mentions what should happen at Christ’s death, and purposely interrupts the order of the narrative to shew that their impiety would not escape punishment, as they not only rejected the Christ of God, but slew him and endeavored to blot out his remembrance from the world. And although the angel had special reference to the faithful alone, still unbelievers required to be admonished with the view of rendering them without excuse. We are well aware of the supineness and brutality of this people, as displayed in their putting Christ to death; for this event occasioned a triumph for the priests and the whole people. Hence these points ought to be joined together. But; the angel consulted the interests of the faithful, as they would be greatly shocked at the death of Christ, which we have alluded to, and also at his ignominy and rejection. As this was a method of perishing so very horrible in the opinion of mankind, the minds of all the pious might utterly despond unless the angel had come to their relief. Hence he proposes a suitable remedy, The leader of the coming people shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; as if he had said, There is no encouragement for the unbelievers to please and flatter themselves, because Christ was reduced to nothing after a carnal sense; vengeance shall instantly overtake them; the leader of the coming people shall destroy both the city and the sanctuary He names a coming leader, to prevent the unbelievers from resting secure through self-flattery, as if God would not instantly stretch forth his hand to avenge himself upon them. Although the Roman army which should destroy the city and sanctuary did not immediately appear, yet the Prophet assures them of the arrival of a leader with an army which should occasion the destruction of both the city and the sanctuary. Without the slightest doubt, he here signifies that God would inflict dreadful vengeance upon the Jews for their murder of his Christ. That trifler, Barbinel, when desirous of refuting the Christians, says — more than two hundred years elapsed between the destruction of the Temple and the death of Christ. How ignorant he was! Even if we were to withhold all confidence from the evangelists and apostles, yet profane writers would soon convict him of folly. But such is the barbarity of his nation, and so great their obstinacy, that they are ashamed of nothing. As far as we are concerned, we gather with sufficient clearness from the passage how the angel touched briefly upon the future slaughter of the city and the destruction of the Temple, lest the faithful should be overwhelmed with trials in consequence of Christ’s death, and lest the unbelievers should be hardened through this occurrence. The interpretation of some writers respecting the people of the coming leader, as if Titus wished to spare the most beautiful city and preserve it untouched, seems to me too refined. I take it simply as a leader about to come with his army to destroy the city, and utterly to overthrow the Temple.

He afterwards adds, Its end shall be in a deluge Here the angel removes all hope from the Jews, whose obstinacy might lead them to expect some advantage in their favor, for we are already aware of their great stupidity when in a state of desperation. Lest the faithful should indulge in the same feelings with the apostates and rebellious, he says, The end of the leader, Titus, should be in a deluge; meaning, he should overthrow the city and national polity, and utterly put an end to the priesthood and the race, while all God’s favors would at the same time be withdrawn. In this sense his end should be in a deluge Lastly, at the end of the war a most decisive desolation The word נחרצת, nech-retzeth, “a completion,” can scarcely be taken otherwise than as a noun substantive. A plural noun follows, שממות, shem-moth, “of desolation’s” or “devastation’s;” and taken verbally it means “definite or terminated laying waste.” The most skillful grammarians allow that the former of these words may be taken substantively for “termination,” as if the angel had said: Even if the Jews experience a variety of fortune in battle, and have hopes of being superior to their enemies, and of sallying out and prohibiting their foes from entering the city; nay, even if they repel them, still the end of the war shall result in utter devastation, and their destruction is clearly defined. Two points, then, are to be noticed here; first, all hope is to be taken from the Jews, as they must be taught the necessity for their perishing; and secondly, a reason is ascribed for this, namely, the determination of the Almighty and his inviolable decree. It afterwards follows: —

Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Bibliographical Information
Calvin, John. "Commentary on Daniel 9:26". "Calvin's Commentary on the Bible". https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/cal/daniel-9.html. 1840-57.